At 10/12/2016 9:54:35 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:Im trying to better educate myself on economic systems so id like to know if there were any failures of supply side economics

The problem with supply side economics is that it uses the same faulty assumptions are all verisions of Keynesian economics, mainly that government's monopoly of violence should have a role in the economy.

Supply side fails just as all outside market interventions fail. Resources are adjusted due to government threats, into less productive areas. This mis-allocation of resources will then require more government force to correct, creating a cycle of violent interventions.

At 10/12/2016 9:54:35 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:Im trying to better educate myself on economic systems so id like to know if there were any failures of supply side economics

The problem with supply side economics is that it uses the same faulty assumptions are all verisions of Keynesian economics, mainly that government's monopoly of violence should have a role in the economy.

Supply side fails just as all outside market interventions fail. Resources are adjusted due to government threats, into less productive areas. This mis-allocation of resources will then require more government force to correct, creating a cycle of violent interventions.

At 10/12/2016 9:54:35 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:Im trying to better educate myself on economic systems so id like to know if there were any failures of supply side economics

The problem with supply side economics is that it uses the same faulty assumptions are all verisions of Keynesian economics, mainly that government's monopoly of violence should have a role in the economy.

Supply side fails just as all outside market interventions fail. Resources are adjusted due to government threats, into less productive areas. This mis-allocation of resources will then require more government force to correct, creating a cycle of violent interventions.

I don't think you understand what supply side economics is. It's the antithesis to Keynesian economics and differs greatly with demand side economics. There is no desire for government intervention or forceful allocation of resources in supply side.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

At 10/12/2016 9:54:35 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:Im trying to better educate myself on economic systems so id like to know if there were any failures of supply side economics

The problem with supply side economics is that it uses the same faulty assumptions are all verisions of Keynesian economics, mainly that government's monopoly of violence should have a role in the economy.

Supply side fails just as all outside market interventions fail. Resources are adjusted due to government threats, into less productive areas. This mis-allocation of resources will then require more government force to correct, creating a cycle of violent interventions.

I don't think you understand what supply side economics is. It's the antithesis to Keynesian economics and differs greatly with demand side economics. There is no desire for government intervention or forceful allocation of resources in supply side.

At 10/12/2016 9:54:35 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:Im trying to better educate myself on economic systems so id like to know if there were any failures of supply side economics

The problem with supply side economics is that it uses the same faulty assumptions are all verisions of Keynesian economics, mainly that government's monopoly of violence should have a role in the economy.

Supply side fails just as all outside market interventions fail. Resources are adjusted due to government threats, into less productive areas. This mis-allocation of resources will then require more government force to correct, creating a cycle of violent interventions.

I don't think you understand what supply side economics is. It's the antithesis to Keynesian economics and differs greatly with demand side economics. There is no desire for government intervention or forceful allocation of resources in supply side.

I do understand supply side economics, is Keynesian light. Supply siders accept government intervention just less, and agree with Keynesians about monetary policy. If forceful allocation of resources was reject by supply siders then they would be Austrians. Supply siders practice normative economic policies just as Keynesians.

A key supply side theory is the Laffer Curve on how to maximum revunue from taxation. If they did not accept government intervention, then they would flatly reject taxation as an economic tool.

At 10/12/2016 9:54:35 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:Im trying to better educate myself on economic systems so id like to know if there were any failures of supply side economics

The problem with supply side economics is that it uses the same faulty assumptions are all verisions of Keynesian economics, mainly that government's monopoly of violence should have a role in the economy.

Supply side fails just as all outside market interventions fail. Resources are adjusted due to government threats, into less productive areas. This mis-allocation of resources will then require more government force to correct, creating a cycle of violent interventions.

Can you give me a specific failure of it though? Like where and when?

Since both Keynesians and supply siders agree on most major economic ideas, specific examples of economic failures are all around us. An example of where the supply side solution is no better economically than a Keynesian idea is in publicly funded education. Many supply siders would want a voucher program as an alternative.

America's public funded education has crowded out low cost private alternatives. Nearly, every household in America is a forced-rider on the public education system and only the upper income levels can afford to exit the system. A system that continually reinforces indoctrination instead of education. A voucher program would not end the crowding out of low cost alternatives. It would simply subsidize the higher cost alternatives. This situation keeps everyone as forced-riders in a high cost education system.

At 10/12/2016 9:54:35 PM, TeaPatriot wrote:Im trying to better educate myself on economic systems so id like to know if there were any failures of supply side economics

The problem with supply side economics is that it uses the same faulty assumptions are all verisions of Keynesian economics, mainly that government's monopoly of violence should have a role in the economy.

Supply side fails just as all outside market interventions fail. Resources are adjusted due to government threats, into less productive areas. This mis-allocation of resources will then require more government force to correct, creating a cycle of violent interventions.

Can you give me a specific failure of it though? Like where and when?

Since both Keynesians and supply siders agree on most major economic ideas, specific examples of economic failures are all around us. An example of where the supply side solution is no better economically than a Keynesian idea is in publicly funded education. Many supply siders would want a voucher program as an alternative.

America's public funded education has crowded out low cost private alternatives. Nearly, every household in America is a forced-rider on the public education system and only the upper income levels can afford to exit the system. A system that continually reinforces indoctrination instead of education. A voucher program would not end the crowding out of low cost alternatives. It would simply subsidize the higher cost alternatives. This situation keeps everyone as forced-riders in a high cost education system.

Oh okay thanks. Im doing a paper on supply side economics and I just want to knoe thr downsides